Log in/Register

Please log in or register to continue. Registration is free and requires only your email address.

Log in

Register

Emailrequired

PasswordrequiredRemember me?

Please enter your email address and click on the reset-password button. You'll receive an email shortly with a link to create a new password. If you have trouble finding this email, please check your spam folder.

To continue reading, please log in or enter your email address.

To access our archive, please log in or register now and read two articles from our archive every month for free. For unlimited access to our archive, as well as to the unrivaled analysis of PS On Point, subscribe now.

Ahead of the annual UN General Assembly session in New York, which takes place on September 19 this year, Richard N. Haass reminds world leaders of the urgency to address the refugee crisis. There are some 21 million refugees across the globe, an increase of which in the last five years has much the turmoil and violence in the Middle East to thank for. Alone the civil war in Syria is a major source of refugee influx to Europe today.
Following the Brexit vote, propelled by a fear of immigrants, Europe is engulfed by "the growing appeal of nationalist parties on the right" that instil "real and imagined fears stemming from refugees." After the Paris attacks last November, which had been carried out by terrorists who sneaked into Europe among the refugees, "there are also security concerns" about the threat some of them might pose. In Germany Angela Merkel faces "the rise of political opposition" to her "open-door" policy ahead of next year's general election. Turkey, with which the EU had struck a refugee deal, is mired in tension after the botched coup attempt on July 15.
As the Syrian war sees no sign of abating, the "economic and social burden" on the neighbouring countries such as Jordan, Turkey, Lebanon, that are hosting large numbers of refugees, are overwhelming. Haass sees "four ways" to address the refugee crisis.
Most of all the international community has "to take steps to ensure that people need not flee their countries or, if they have, to create conditions that permit them to return home." But ending the war in Syria requires ALL warring parties to come to the negotiating table. Unfortunately there is little "sufficient will" to commit, and in the absence of "consensus" the war will be fought to the bitter end.
Haass is teemed with idealism when he says: "The second way to help refugees is to ensure their safety and wellbeing. Refugees are particularly vulnerable when they are on the move. And after they arrive, many fundamental needs – including health, education, and physical safety – must be met." This is the reason why many nationalists reject immigrants, because they resent taxpayers' money being spent on "adequate provision of essential services" when their governments have to slash public spending, cutting their social benefits.
This "third component" of a better plan for refugees has been proposed by many experts, who call for an allocation of "economic resources to help deal with the burden." Apart from the US and "European Union member governments and the EU itself" that are among "the largest contributors to the UN High Commission on Refugees," other countries should show some solidarity and "commit their fair share. They ought to be named and shamed." The truth is that, as economic growth in many countries stalls, or remains slow and modest, there is little room for foreign aid.
The most challenging part of "any refugee program involves finding places for them to go." Unfortunately the political outlook is grim, as "most governments are unwilling to commit to take in any specific number or percentage of the world’s refugees."
Haass is right that "there is little reason to be optimistic." As usual any pledge may just be lip service,. Often such drafts are long on words and short on substance. Indeed, the refugee crisis reveals "the gap between what needs to be done to meet a global challenge and what the world is prepared to do." The international community seems become aloof and callous towards "millions of men, women, and children" whose dangerous present and a future of little prospect" may sink into oblivion.﻿

When I look at the UHCR figures I notice that most refugees come from Moslim countries, while all the hosts are also Moslim countries ( the EU, host to over 1 million refugees, have been ommited). Would it not be more proper and effective if that refugee problem is placed with the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation instead of with UNCHR in NY ?

This annual pilgrimage, one of many during the year by the world leaders, is a sightseeing show. Hollywood can produce a much better show and at a profit rather than the huge cost that these world leaders gathering events cost the tax payers. The solution to the refugees crises is well known and that is one and only “Stabilise the originating countries”, economically, socially and above all politically. Syria, Somalia and Afghanistan in particular seem to require a stronger dose of medicine, but no one out there, and due to conflicting agendas, has the guts or is willing to use it. Until then, good luck all…

The current flow of refugees destroying EU comes from totally unnecessary American wars to overthrow the stablizing rulers in Libya and Syria who posed no national security concerns.

The time has come to recognize that selectively chosen interventions for "humanitarian" reasons are themselves a threat to national security--and that they often lead to worse humanitarian disasters than they tried to solve. The refugee problem is in fact a humanitarian and a national security disaster.

The US representative to the United Nations was one of the strong advocates of the policy in Libya and Syria. It will be amusing to hear her pious remarks about refugees.

Unfortunately, the probable next President pushed for both unnecessary interventions and is critical of Obama for not doing more. One can only hope that she has learned and that her foreign policy advisor Jake Sullivan's presence in the Iranian nuclear negotiations was a positive sign.

It's the common problem on diplomatic dialogues: leaders often express their sentiments on how other governments should acknowledge the dismal plight of the refugees and instruct them with this and that during speeches instead of taking the first step to initiate programs and invite these reclusive nations to join and help these poor people find a new home. Some countries with rising populist sentiments nowadays entail deep sense of nationalism, to the point that the people develops radical xenocentrism and superiority attitude towards outsiders and the different. The September meeting would definitely be an acid test for the United Nations' member-states at committing the namesake to be united at all.

"We can expect to hear a lot of talk in New York next month about the international community’s responsibility to do more to help existing refugees and address the conditions driving them to flee their homelands. But the cold truth is that there is little “community” at the international level."

The term *international community*, in these pages, is a euphemism for the will of US-Euro foreign policy. In this light, the above statement is deadly accurate. The lesser countries of the world can complain all they want, but the refugee situation, and all the brilliant middle east policy that caused it, is here to stay . . .